Formula One: Testing The Breaks At Silverstone

Thursday, July 13, 2017

As we cruise into this weekend’s British Grand Prix the future of the event is in jeopardy. The British Grand Prix has been a feature of the F1 calendar since 1926 and has been held at Silverstone almost continuously since 1948. However, the circuit’s owner – the British Racing Driver’s Club (BRDC) – announced late on Tuesday night that it has triggered a break clause in its contract to host the race until 2027. If negotiations with Liberty Media, F1’s ultimate owners since January 2017, are unsuccessful then the last GP to be held at Silverstone could be as early as 2019.

When the contract was signed in 2009 between BRDC and Formula One Group, F1’s then owners, it was not without controversy; the bid was originally won by Donington Park who terminated the contract soon after due to funding difficulties. In entering the contract, BRDC agreed to pay an annual hosting fee but has been stung by the reported 5% annual fee increase which has risen from around £11.5 million in 2010 to £16.2 million for this year’s race. There is some perception that BRDC may be using its break clause option to publicly pressure Liberty Media into re-negotiating the 5% fee increase.

The circuit is, unlike an increasing number of F1 venues, completely privately owned and so does not receive government subsidies for hosting the event (which is often viewed as an international profile-raiser and revenue booster by national authorities such as in Azerbaijan). However, the fee is still significantly lower than for some other circuits, for example the Circuit of the Americas in Austin which will reportedly pay hosting fees of almost $560 million over its 10-year contract.

There has also been reported criticism by team bosses of BRDC for investing money unwisely in developments to the track and paddock which have apparently failed to improve the F1 experience for fans and drivers alike. Whilst the exact terms of the contract are unlikely to be made public, it is to be assumed that triggering the break clause presents a more preferable solution to BRDC than defaulting on the hosting fee in future, which is likely to constitute a breach of the contract and carry significant financial penalties (not to mention severe financial difficulties for BRDC).

BRDC’s decision, coupled with the rising success of street circuits (such as Monaco, Singapore and Baku) and the lure of London as a global destination means that we could see an F1 race through Westminster sooner than previously thought, a vision fuelled by Wednesday evening’s F1 demonstration and “F1 Live” event in and around Trafalgar Square. Chase Carey, CEO of Liberty Media, has admitted that hosting a London Grand Prix in future is a possibility, but has also made clear his preference to negotiate with BRDC in private to seek a solution to keep the British GP at Silverstone beyond 2019.

Whilst a London street circuit would be undoubtedly an exciting addition to the F1 calendar, it is a huge blow to the sport (and to this weekend’s racing in particular) that Silverstone has pit- stopped early.

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com intended to be a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional. NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us.

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558 Telephone (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.